the great american migration slowdown - brookingsmigration slowdown: regional and metropolitan...
TRANSCRIPT
BROOKINGS | December 2009 1
The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional and Metropolitan Dimensions William H. Frey
“ The recent
migration slow-
down was the
by-product of an
unprecedented
run-up in both
housing values
and housing-
related debt,
rendering Ameri-
cans flat-footed.”
FindingsAnalysis of U.S. domestic and international migration patterns through 2008–2009 reveals that:
n �In�2007-2008,�the�overall�U.S.�migration�rate�reached�its�lowest�point�since�World�War�II.�The slowdown was especially pronounced for long-distance moves, which remained flat through 2008–2009, as well as for single people and renters. Both long-distance and short-distance movers were less likely to cite housing reasons for their moves.
n From�2007�to�2008,�23�states,�mostly�in�the�Intermountain�West�and�Southeast,�showed�reduced�in-migration�or�a�switch�from�in-�to�out-migration.�Thirteen states, mostly on the coasts, showed lower levels of out-migration. The migration fortunes of three Sun Belt states—Florida, Texas, and California—showed distinctly different loss and gain patterns in various population groups.
n �The�metro�areas�that�experienced�the�greatest�recent�migration�declines�were�those�that�reaped�the�most�migrants�during�the�mid-decade�housing�bubble.�On the other hand, out-migration areas in northern states and along the coasts have bucked their long-term trend, retaining residents.
n Migration�to�exurban�and�newer�suburban�counties�dropped�substantially,�while�it�brought�about�unexpected�“windfall”�gains�in�many�large�urban�cores.�Large urban areas such as Boston, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia saw net out-migration shrink significantly from 2005 to 2008, and San Francisco actually posted a net migration gain after registering annual losses throughout the decade.
n �Although�international�migration�to�the�U.S.�has�also�declined,�it�continued�to�offset�losses�from�domestic�migration�in�many�large�metropolitan�immigrant�gateways�through-out�the�decade.�In Chicago, Miami, and Washington, D.C., gains from immigration more than offset net domestic migration losses in 2007–2008, while Houston, Dallas, and San Francisco gained from both types of migration.
The recent migration slowdown was the surprising, but in retrospect inevitable, by-product of an unprecedented run-up in both housing values and housing-related debt. The credit crisis and Great Recession that followed left Americans flat-footed, as would-be movers were unable to find financing to buy a new home, buyers for their existing homes, or a new job in more desirable areas. When the housing market finally clears, and recovery is well underway, both Sun Belt and Snow Belt areas with diversified, new economy industries could find themselves at the leading edge of the next migration boom.
BROOKINGS | December 20092
Introduction
America has always been known as one of the most mobile countries in the world. Historically, Americans’ pioneering spirit has led their migration westward; from the rural South to the industrial North; into the suburbs; to the Sun Belt; and most recently to interior frontiers in the Intermountain West and Southeast. Today, Americans’ migration rates remain higher
than those of most developed countries.1
But recent events have challenged that narrative, as migration in America slowed considerably. The trend relates to a number of factors. First, in many parts of the country, including large parts of Florida, Nevada and Arizona, a housing “bubble” arose during the middle part of the decade due to overbuilding and easy mortgage credit. Second, the financial market crisis that began in September 2008 led to sharp reductions in credit. As a result, potential buyers had difficulty obtaining mortgages, and potential sellers saw reductions in the values of their homes. Third, the financial crisis greatly exacerbated the national recession that had begun in December 2007, reducing job availability in most regions of the country. This triple whammy of forces made it riskier for would-be homebuyers to find financing, would-be sellers to receive good value for their home, and potential long-distance movers to find employment in areas where jobs were previously plentiful.
As this report shows, while much attention has been given to the overall decline of migration in the United States, its impact was strongest on particular regions, states, metropolitan areas, cities, and suburbs. Shedding further light on the nature of the recent migration slowdown, the report details how different types of households and parts of the country have been affected and provides some insights on what may happen if and when migration again heats up.
After providing an overview of relevant data sources, the report proceeds in five parts. It first examines the overall magnitude of the migration downturn, and the social and demographic groups most affected by it. It places special emphasis on longer-distance, interstate migration, which took the greatest plunge in response to the troubled job and housing markets. Next, it considers how the migration slowdown has impacted individual states, focusing in particular on three traditional Sun Belt states—Florida, Texas, and California. An assessment of the slowdown’s impacts on metropolitan areas follows, with attention to “mirror image” migration patterns between complementary metro areas in coastal California and the interior West; and between analogues in Florida and the Northeast. The report next looks at migration shifts within metropolitan areas between urban, suburban, and exurban areas. Finally, it discusses the continued role of international migration as a source of population gains for major immigrant magnet metropolitan areas. A conclusion summarizes findings and speculates about what they indicate for migration and population shifts within the United States over the next several years.
Methodology
Data�and�MeasuresThis report utilizes the most recently available government statistics on domestic and international migration to assess the state, regional, and metropolitan dimensions of the recent migration slowdown in the United States. Three of the data sources used are produced by the U.S. Census Bureau: (1) the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement to the Current Population Survey; (2) the American Community Survey; and (3) the Population Estimates Program. A further source is the annual state-to-state migration flow data provided by the Internal Revenue Service. Each of these sources has different strengths with respect to history and recency, demographic detail, geographic specificity, and migration flow information. Each covers moves over one-year periods, with end points ranging from 2008 to early 2009.2
• Current Population Survey (CPS). The migration data for this report utilize the “residence one year ago” question from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the CPS, drawn from approximate-ly 100,000 households representing the civilian non-institutionalized population of the United States in March of each year. The CPS time series is the longest of all sources used here, beginning in March
BROOKINGS | December 2009 3
1948 and ending in March 2009. It also provides migration information for a broad range of social and demographic attributes. Movers are defined as persons who have changed their residence over the past year, and rates are computed as moves per 100 residents aged 1 and above at the end of the year. The most recent data in this report derived from the CPS pertain to the period between March 2008 and March 2009.
• American Community Survey (ACS). The American Community Survey provides information on migration for a sample large enough to examine social and demographic attributes for migrants into and out of states and other large geographic areas. Beginning in 2005, it surveys 3 million house-holds over a 12-month period and assesses migration based on a “residence 1 year ago” question. This report uses ACS data to compare the social and demographic attributes of net migration for 2004–2005 versus 2007–2008. Net migration for a state is defined as the number of migrants enter-ing a state less the number of migrants leaving a state over the previous year. Unlike the CPS-ASEC, the ACS surveys households over a 12-month period rather than during a single month, so net migra-tion statistics reflect the state average over the periods noted.
• Population Estimates. The Census Bureau’s Population Estimates program provides information on net domestic migration and net international migration for lower levels of geography (states, metropolitan areas, and counties) than are available with either the CPS or single-year ACS data. The estimates are not based directly on surveys but on models and administrative data. They pro-vide population estimates for July 1 of each year, as well as the components of population change (domestic migration, international migration, births, and deaths) for one-year intervals of successive years (from July 1 to June 30) from 2000–2001 to 2007–2008. Annual migration rates are calculated per 100 residents at the beginning of the period.
• IRS State-to-State Migration. Annual state-to-state domestic migration flows are available from the Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income Division, based on a comparison of tax filer ad-dresses in consecutive years. Estimates of migration flows are based on the number of exemptions claimed by tax filers, which provide a proxy for persons in their families. The data include only those who filed taxes in successive years, and therefore omit some elderly individuals who do not file tax returns, and new filers who did not file in the previous year. This report uses state-to-state migration flows from 2000-2001 to 2007–2008 to estimate the “net migration contribution” to a given state from other areas of the country (regions and states).
GeographyThis report presents migration statistics for states, the four Census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), large metropolitan areas, and selected urban counties. (See Appendices C and D for 2000–2001 to 2007–2008 net migration statistics for all U.S. states and the 40 largest metropoli-tan areas). Metropolitan areas are defined according to Office of Management and Budget guidance issued in November 2008, though official names are abbreviated in tables and figures.
Findings
A. In 2007–2008, the overall U.S. migration rate reached its lowest point since World War II.The past two years marked the least mobile period in postwar American society. In 2007–2008, only 11.9 percent of Americans changed residence, and this rose to just 12.5 percent in 2008–2009. Together, these are the lowest rates of annual mobility since migration statistics were collected in 1947–1948 (Figure 1). The rates are down from 13 to 14 percent earlier this decade, and even more so from the 16 to 17 percent rates that prevailed in the 1990s (See Appendix A). Back in the 1950s, almost one fifth of all Americans changed residence annually. Since that time, the American public has become somewhat more rooted due to higher rates of homeownership, and the aging of the baby boom generation.
BROOKINGS | December 20094
Declines in both long-distance and short-distance migration contributed to this historic U.S. migra-tion slowdown. Long-distance migrants move among broader geographies such as metropolitan areas or states. For people of working age, these moves tend to be associated with changes in employment. In contrast, local or short-distance migration, sometimes called residential mobility, often accompanies a change in housing needs. This might include a move from renting to owning a home, to a different kind of house or neighborhood, or due to changes in family status like getting married or having chil-dren.3 Roughly three in five moves are short-distance moves; up to one in five is a long-distance move; and the remaining one in five is an inter-county, within-state move.
The rate at which people move within a county, a proxy for short-distance migration, reached 7.8 percent of the population in 2007–2008, the lowest rate since the end of World War II. It ticked up in 2008–2009 to 8.4 percent though it remains low by historical standards (Figure 2). In much of the 1990s greater than 10 percent of the population moved within county lines, as did well over 13 percent of Americans for much of the 1950s and 1960s. Residential mobility has declined gradually over time as homeownership rates have risen, and the population has aged, but the sharp downturn in the past two years relates very much to the housing market meltdown.
At the other end of the spectrum, the rate at which people move across state lines can serve as a proxy for long-distance migration. In both 2007–2008 and 2008–2009, annual interstate migration reached its lowest rates since the end of World War II (Figure 2). The recent decline in between-state migration is far more dramatic than that for within-county residential mobility. In fact, the 1.6 percent interstate migration rate for the past two years was half the value exhibited in 1999–2000, and far lower than the rate in the 1950s, when between 3 and 4 percent of the population moved across state lines annually.
As migration declined, housing became a notably less important driver for relocation, for short- and long-distance movers alike. In 2004–2005, amid the housing bubble period, 62 percent of within-county movers and 22 percent of interstate movers cited housing-related reasons as most important in explaining their move. By 2008–2009, those shares had declined to 57 and 14 percent, respectively. Job-related reasons explained fully 46 percent of the fewer interstate moves undertaken in the latter period (see Appendix B for details).
Although short-distance moves are more frequent, long-distance migration acts as an engine of growth in many metropolitan areas. It affects not only the sizes of their overall populations but also those of key social and demographic segments that impact the economic vitality of these areas.
The demographic attribute most related to migration is age; younger adults are far more likely to
Figure�1.�Annual�Domestic�Migration�Rate,�United�States,�1947–1948�to�2008–2009
Note: annual data not collected from 1971–1975 and 1976–1980. Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rate
200820031998199319881983197519671962195719521947
0
5
10
15
20
25Annual Migration Rate
2008-092007-082006-072005-062004-052003-042002-032001-022000-011999-001998-991997-981996-971995-961994-951993-941992-93*1991-921990-911989-901988-891987-881986-871985-861984-851983-841982-831981-821980-811975-761970-711969-701968-691967-681966-671965-661964-651963-641962-631961-621960-611959-601958-591957-581956-571955-561954-551953-541952-531951-521950-511949-501948-491947-48
BROOKINGS | December 2009 5
move than older individuals. Figure 3 indicates that in 2000–2001, as in most years, individuals in their twenties showed the highest rate of interstate migration, a rate which tapered dramatically as individu-als age into their late thirties and thereafter, with a small peak in the early sixties related to retirement moves. It was young adults—those with the highest rates of mobility—who showed the steepest declines in interstate migration by 2008–2009, with rates almost halving for 20 to 29 year-olds. Youth migra-tion rates appear to have fallen in response to both a weakened job market and reduced home buying activity. Even the small bump in migration for seniors at retirement age disappeared in 2008–2009.
Other demographic and economic attributes are associated with migration as well (Figure 4). For instance, the most educated segments of the population are more likely to make long-distance moves, largely because college graduates and professionals operate in more of a national labor market,
Figure�2.�Within-County�and�Interstate�Migration�Rates,�United�States,��1990-1991�to�2008-2009
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
Figure�3.�Interstate�Migration�Rate�by�Age,�United�States,�2000–2001�and�2008–2009
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2008-20092006-20072004-20052002-20032000-20011998-19991996-19971994-19951992-19931990-1991
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2008-092007-082006-072005-062004-052003-042002-032001-022000-011999-001998-991997-981996-971995-961994-951993-941992-93*1991-921990-91
Rate
Within-county migration rate Interstate migration rate
Rate
Figure 3. Interstate Migration Rate by Age, United States, 2000-01 and 2008-09
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Under 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 andover
2000-2001 2008-2009
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey
Figure 3. Interstate Migration Rate by Age, United States, 2000-01 and 2008-09
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Under 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 andover
2000-2001 2008-2009
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
BROOKINGS | December 20096
attuned to opportunities in different regions of the country. Less-educated workers are more likely to change jobs within a labor market, and thus make shorter-distance moves.4 These differences have persisted during the migration slowdown, though all groups have been affected. Those with at least a college degree had higher rates of interstate mobility than other groups in 2008–2009. Yet each educational group experienced at least a one percentage point decline in its rates over the course of the decade.
Married couples and older widows and widowers generally exhibit lower levels of interstate migra-tion than single and divorced persons, and this remained true in 2008–2009. Single individuals by virtue of their relative youth and lack of dependents may be the most “footloose” of marital status groups. However, those individuals experienced the most substantial decline in long-distance migra-tion, perhaps deciding to live with parents or other friends and relatives as a result of the economic downturn, and not making as many long-distance labor-market-related moves.
Finally, economic attributes like employment status and homeownership also relate to migration, with the unemployed and renters typically undertaking long-distance moves more frequently. Both the employed and unemployed saw their interstate migration rates drop significantly over the course of the decade. Renters, meanwhile, showed a much more substantial fall-off in long-distance migra-tion than their homeowner counterparts, perhaps reflecting not only their own worsened economic
Figure�4.�Interstate�Migration�Rate�by�Demographic/Economic�Attributes,�United�States,�2000-2001�to�2008-2009
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
Tenure Status
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
Owners Renters
Rate
Labor Force Status (Men)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Not in Labor Force Unemployed
Full-time Employed Part-time Employed
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
Rate
Marital Status
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Never Married Married
Divorced or Separated Widowed
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
Rate
Educational Attainment
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Less Than HS HS Grad
Some College College Grad
More Than College Grad
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
Rate
BROOKINGS | December 2009 7
Map�1.�Change�in�Net�Domestic�Migration�by�State2006-2007�to�2007-2008
Brookings analysis of Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data
Reduced Net In-migration
Reduced Net Out-migration
Change from Net In- to Out-migration
All Other
Map 1. Change in Net Domestic Migration by State2006–07 to 2007–08
Brookings analysis of Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data
prospects, but also the reluctance of owners to sell their homes and move during a period of nation-wide home price declines.
Overall, the last few years brought a sharp decline in migration, particularly over long distances. A freeze in the housing market coupled with a fairly pervasive nationwide recession led to a sharp and historic decline in long-distance migration that has deeply affected more economically vulnerable members of society.5
B. From 2007 to 2008, 23 states, mostly in the Intermountain West and Southeast, showed reduced in-migration or a switch from in- to out-migration.The recent downturn in interstate migration has had variable impacts on different parts of the country. States that grew fastest during the mid-decade “bubble” years have experienced the greatest down-turns in recent in-migration. By the same token, several states that were considered unaffordable and exported migrants during those bubble years have seen out-migration decline considerably.
State-level migration patterns between 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 demonstrate the impacts of the downturn on different types of states (Map 1). The greatest shifts occurred in states that had benefitted most from the mid-decade housing boom, especially the southern and Intermountain West states of Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. Among the 28 states that gained migrants in 2006–2007, 19 gained fewer in 2007–2008, and an additional four (including Florida) flipped from gaining to losing domestic migrants. Among the 22 states and the District of Columbia that lost migrants in 2006–2007, 13—including California and New York—lost fewer migrants in 2007–2008.
Many of these high-cost coastal states lost migrants during the middle part of the decade to interior states where housing seemed more affordable. In 2004–2005, both California and New York lost about a quarter million migrants to other parts of the country. As more Americans stayed put in 2007–2008, California’s migration loss shrank to 144,000 and New York’s roughly halved to 126,000. A similar retention of potential out-migrants occurred in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut, as evidently many young couples, empty nesters, and retirees waited until new opportunities arose elsewhere.
BROOKINGS | December 20098
During much of the post-World War II period, when Northerners contemplated moving to the Sun Belt, three states tended to stand out—Florida for Easterners; Texas for Midwesterners; and California for people from all parts of the country. Florida and Texas kept their luster in attracting migrants up through the first decade of this century (Appendix C). California began to lose its magnetism for domestic migrants during the 1990s, first due to a sharp economic downturn and later to high housing costs. The recent migration downturn has impacted each of these states somewhat differently.
FloridaFlorida, of the three, is a poster child for the recent housing slump. Long a magnet for retirees, and more recently for broader segments of the population, Florida led the nation in domestic in-migration for the first half of this decade. Yet overbuilding and a high level of foreclosures made it one of the first states to show dramatic declines in migration, including a surprising switch from net in- to net out-migration between 2006–2007 and 2007–2008. This devastated the state’s economy, which had relied heavily on the construction and real estate industries.6 Figure 5 shows that Florida’s migration this decade peaked between 2003 and 2005 and began to taper in 2005–2006. A more significant plunge occurred between 2006 and 2008.
The major contributor to Florida’s migration loss was its exchange with the Northeast (Figure 6). In-migration from that region, and from New York state and the New York metropolitan area especially, dominated that from other regions through 2005, then fell precipitously through 2008. Meanwhile, Florida began to export migrants on net to other parts of the South by 2005–2006, a pat-tern that accelerated the following year. Major migration gainers from Florida include Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. (See Appendix E for the top and bottom five state contributors to Florida’s migration.)
Notably, Florida’s statewide migration slowdown is not heavily concentrated in one part of the state. Between 2007 and 2008, fully 48 of Florida’s 67 counties showed reduced in-migration or greater out-migration, signaling a truly statewide loss of magnetism.
The shift from net in-migration to net out-migration in Florida was especially strong for whites, Hispanics, younger people, married couples and persons with some college education (Appendix F). Despite its total net out-migration, Florida still attracted people aged 55 and over in 2007–2008. Of course, the considerable reduction in the in-migration of younger age groups stands to rob Florida of some of its traditionally vibrant, youthful, middle-class labor force.
Figure�5.�Net�Domestic�Migration,�Florida,�Texas,�and�California,�2000-2001�to�2007-2008
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data
-400,000
-300,000
-200,000
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Florida Texas California
BROOKINGS | December 2009 9
TexasTexas provides a sharp contrast to Florida. While also a traditional Sun Belt magnet, it is part of an economically different Sun Belt than Florida, one largely insulated from the mortgage crisis and steep home price declines and employment losses.7 Texas’s more diverse economy and stricter home mort-gage regulation (which itself resulted from excesses of the previous decade) have produced far fewer job losses and foreclosures than states like Florida, Arizona, and Nevada have experienced.8
As a result, Texas’s migration patterns differ sharply from Florida’s and California’s (Figure 5). Buffeted to some degree by in-migration from post-Katrina New Orleans, the state has shown con-sistent net in-migration over the past few years, out-pacing its gains in the first part of the decade. Aside from the Katrina migration spike of 2005–2006, Texas’s rise draws from all regions, especially California in the West (Figure 6). From 2003 to 2008, aside from Louisiana (where gains were strong post-Katrina but short-lived), California and Florida contributed the most migrants to Texas, while smaller but significant gains came from Illinois and New York.
A broad array of demographic groups, including whites, Hispanics, children, and younger married couples drove Texas’s recent migration gains (Appendix F). Its reduced black in-migration can be attributed, in part, to Katrina-related return migration to Louisiana. Notably, Texas displayed height-ened attraction for college graduates in 2007–2008 compared to 2004–2005, which could benefit the state economically over the long run.
CaliforniaThe third traditional Sun Belt state, California, continues to show net domestic out-migration, which began in the 1990s (Figure 5). A significant portion of that population loss has been attributed to the high cost of living in coastal California, which tended to spread migrants to other nearby states (Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington), as well as to other parts of the Intermountain West and Texas.9
More recently, however, California exhibits something of the reverse pattern shown by Florida. While Florida attracted many more domestic in-migrants during the mid-decade housing bubble, California showed accelerated out-migration during those years. As the bubble began to burst, however, domes-tic out-migration from California slowed considerably. Migration away from areas stretching from San Francisco to San Diego, where high housing prices fueled “middle-class flight” to the interior West, has now retrenched as home foreclosures rise and job opportunities diminish in states like Nevada and Arizona.
Figure�6.�Contribution�to�Net�Domestic�Migration�by�Region�for�Florida,�Texas,�and�California,�2000-2001�to�2007-2008
Source: Brookings analysis of Internal Revenue Service state-to-state migration data
Note: Contribution to net domestic migration is defined as the size of in-migration flow from a region minus the size of the out-migration flow to that region.
Florida
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Northeast Midwest
South West
Texas
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Northeast Midwest
South West
California
-200,000
-160,000
-120,000
-80,000
-40,000
0
40,000
2000–2001
2001–2002
2002–2003
2003–2004
2004–2005
2005–2006
2006–2007
2007–2008
2000–2001
2001–2002
2002–2003
2003–2004
2004–2005
2005–2006
2006–2007
2007–2008
2000–2001
2001–2002
2002–2003
2003–2004
2004–2005
2005–2006
2006–2007
2007–2008
Northeast Midwest
South West
BROOKINGS | December 200910
Those Western states very much drive California’s overall migration trend (Figure 6). The lion’s share of domestic net out-migration was absorbed by other Western states during the first half of the decade, but between 2006 and 2008, the annual losses dropped by roughly half. Among these states, California lost the most migrants to Arizona and Nevada during the “bubble” year of 2004–2005. Now, however, Texas absorbs the greatest number of California out-migrants. In 2007–2008, California expe-rienced net out-migration to 36 states and the District of Columbia, and received small net migration gains from Northeastern and Midwestern states including New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Michigan (Appendix E).
During the middle part of the decade, younger couples and singles with moderate education levels dominated the groups leaving California for lower-cost housing and job opportunities in surrounding states (Appendix F). Now, the state seems to be retaining many of these same groups, particularly younger whites and Hispanics who are married couples or singles, as housing cost pressures ease. Among educational groups, college graduates flipped from considerable net out-migration to modest net in-migration, as the housing market and job opportunities dried up in other parts of the country. For the moment, the national migration slowdown appears to have benefited California, as more of its younger, well-educated residents have remained Californians than in the recent past.
C. The metro areas that experienced the greatest recent migration declines were those that reaped the most migrants during the mid-decade housing bubble.Looking within states to metropolitan areas provides a sharper contrast between the “winners” and “losers” in the recent migration slowdown. For example, the Riverside metropolitan area in southern California experienced a housing bubble similar to those in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and migration trends there have differed importantly from those occurring in coastal California metropolitan areas.
Several metropolitan areas that gained substantial numbers of in-migrants during the housing bubble years seem to have lost their attractive power more recently (Table 1). In both 2003–2004 and 2004–2005, Riverside, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tampa, Orlando, and Atlanta led all metropolitan areas in net domestic migration. By 2005–2006, Tampa and Orlando had already dropped to eighth and tenth as Florida’s housing bubble began to pop, while Riverside fell but remained in the top six. But by 2007–2008, Riverside had turned from a domestic migration gainer to one of the biggest losers (ranked 350 out of 363); Tampa and Orlando plummeted further down the list; and Las Vegas dropped to 13th.
As migration to destinations in Florida and the Intermountain West waned in the wake of the
Table�1.�Metro�Areas�with�Highest�Annual�Net�Domestic�Migration,�2003-2004�to�2007-2008
� 2003-2004� 2004-2005� 2005-2006� 2006-2007� 2007-2008
1 Riverside 95,221 1 Phoenix 98,699 1 Phoenix 102,954 1 Atlanta 75,098 1 Phoenix 51,077
2 Phoenix 66,231 2 Riverside 72,502 2 Atlanta 95,661 2 Phoenix 65,949 2 Dallas 43,175
3 Las Vegas 53,848 3 Tampa 52,008 3 Houston 88,885 3 Dallas 52,260 3 Atlanta 43,051
4 Tampa 49,427 4 Orlando 51,939 4 Dallas 71,433 4 Charlotte 45,549 4 Houston 36,724
5 Orlando 44,365 5 Atlanta 51,462 5 Riverside 61,177 5 Austin 40,561 5 Austin 35,041
6 Atlanta 32,297 6 Las Vegas 39,186 6 Las Vegas 44,436 6 New Orleans 36,155 6 Charlotte 34,387
8 Tampa 39,331 7 Las Vegas 32,876 13 Las Vegas 14,365
10 Orlando 34,307 10 Riverside 29,715 25 Tampa 6,510
15 Tampa 16,117 57 Orlando 3,153
19 Orlando 11,570 350 Riverside -7,608
Note: Shading denotes metro areas ranking 1 to 6 in 2003–2004
Source: Author’s analysis of American Community Survey data.
BROOKINGS | December 2009 11
mortgage crisis, other metro areas climbed the list of top gainers. Chief among these were metro areas in Texas, including Dallas, Houston, and Austin. Yet recent migration gains among the top- ranked metro areas were not nearly as high as those in the middle of the decade. Phoenix continued to lead all other metro areas in domestic migration in 2007–2008, but its net annual inflow was only about half what it was just two years earlier. The same held for Atlanta, the second-largest gainer in 2007–2008.
A group of large Florida metro areas demonstrates the migration reversal evident at the statewide level (Figure 7). Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and Cape Coral-Fort Myers each show migration peaks in 2004–2005, and noticeable declines in the last two years. Miami registered substantial net out-migration over this period, including a net loss of 84,000 domestic migrants in 2006–2007, though its outflow moderated the following year.
Large metro areas in Texas, including Dallas, Houston, and Austin, exhibit an entirely different pattern. They experienced far greater net in-migration in the latter years of this decade, at the same time that the migration bubble popped in Florida metro areas. Large gains in Houston, and to a lesser extent Dallas, in 2005-2006 reflect in part temporary gains from Louisianans displaced by the after-math of Hurricane Katrina. Even as interstate migration plummeted nationwide, the three metro areas still managed to post net gains of 35,000 to 45,000 migrants each in 2007–2008.
Coastal California metro areas display something of a mirror-image migration pattern to their interior West counterparts. While the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and especially Los Angeles saw increasing out-migration through the middle part of the decade, that trend moderated along with home prices over the past few years, such that San Francisco and San Diego each posted small migration gains in 2007–2008. Los Angeles lost only about half as many migrants that year as it did in 2005–2006. Its pattern roughly inverts that of the Phoenix metro area, the destination for
Figure�7.�Net�Domestic�Migration,�Selected�Metro�Areas�by�State/Region,�2000-2001�to�2007-2008
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data
Florida metro areas
-100,000
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
Orlando Tampa Cape Coral Miami
Texas metro areas
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
Dallas Houston Austin
Coastal California metro areas
-250,000
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
Los Angeles San Francisco
San Jose San Diego
Major Northern metro areas
-300,000
-250,000
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
New York Boston Chicago
Older Industrial metro areas
-25,000
-20,000
-15,000
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
Buffalo Pittsburgh
Cleveland Providence
Interior Western metro areas
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
2005-
06
2006-
07
2007-
08
Phoenix Las Vegas Riverside
BROOKINGS | December 200912
many Angelenos in the early to mid-2000s. Las Vegas and Riverside also received many of their migrants from coastal California during that earlier period, but have since seen inflows plummet.
As Map 1 demonstrates, the impacts of the migration slowdown were hardly limited to these Sun Belt destinations. Areas of the country that experienced significant migration outflows during the housing bubble years saw the trend turn less negative in the last couple of years (Figure 7). The Boston and Chicago metro areas shed increasing numbers of migrants through the middle part of the decade, but began to stanch the outflow in 2005–2006. The same held for the New York area; while net out-migra-tion reduced its population by fully 144,000 in 2007–2008, that was only about half the migration loss it sustained just three years prior. Pittsburgh posted its smallest decline from net migration in more than a decade, while rising outflows from Buffalo, Cleveland, and Providence moderated after peaking in 2005–2006. The latter two metro areas have among the weakest regional economies in the United States today, however, and their migration fortunes may slip once again as long-distance household mobility begins to rise.10 Yet for the present, their migration patterns are “mirror images” of past years, when many of these residents were lost to fast-growing areas like those in Florida.
D. Migration to exurban and newer suburban counties dropped substantially, while it brought about unexpected “windfall” gains in many large urban cores. Within metropolitan areas, suburban and exurban areas often benefited most from the mid-decade housing boom. There, new housing construction flourished as easy credit became available, especially in the Sun Belt where new jobs were plentiful. Yet the most recent migration data show that these same outer portions of metropolitan areas took the greatest hits as overall migration dried up.
Based on a system that classifies large metropolitan counties by the relative urbanization of their populations, throughout the entire 2000–2008 period, emerging suburban and exurban counties expe-rienced greater domestic in-migration than typically closer-in, mature suburban counties (Figure 8).11 Core and high-density counties actually lost domestic migrants on net each year.
But the disparity between the urban and suburban counties reached its peak in 2005–2006, and narrowed greatly in the following two years. Growth from in-migration declined significantly in both emerging suburban/exurban and closer-in mature suburban counties. Meanwhile, the rate of domes-tic out-migration from core and high-density counties more than halved, as these areas apparently retained more residents who might have previously decamped for fast-growing suburbs.
These broad patterns, aggregated from all large metropolitan areas, play out more distinctly in par-ticular areas (Figure 9). Among large urban areas, the cities of New York and Boston, and Cook County, IL (which contains Chicago), all showed marked reductions in net out-migration after 2004–2005. Philadelphia’s net migration decline eased over the course of the decade. Outflow from Los Angeles County (which contains the city of Los Angeles) moderately significantly as well, though more recently. And San Francisco actually shifted from net out-migration throughout the decade to net in-migration in 2007–2008.
In contrast, fall-offs in domestic migration are evident in peripheral suburban counties within the metropolitan areas of Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Dallas, and Houston, among others. New York’s suburban counties counter this pattern as they tend to show either reduced migration losses or increased gains in 2007-2008. At the other extreme is Atlanta—an area that displayed metropolitan-wide migration declines in 2007–2008. There, 21 of 26 metropolitan counties showed reduced migra-tion gains over the period.
Overall, these patterns reflect broader trends occurring within major metropolitan areas nationwide, wherein cities and core counties are either losing fewer or gaining more migrants than at mid-decade, when the hot housing market seemed to accelerate a rush to the suburbs and exurbs. Some of these shifts involved new migrants from outside the metro area landing in the exurbs and suburbs. However, the bulk of the movement to newer outer suburbs and exurbs represented local movers, from inner parts of the same metropolitan area, radiating outward.
BROOKINGS | December 2009 13
E. Although international migration to the U.S. has also declined, it continued to off-set losses from domestic migration in many large metropolitan immigrant gateways throughout the decade. The great migration downturn affected not just movement within the United States. Recent data sug-gest that the size of the U.S. foreign-born population may have stood almost still between 2007 and 2008, after increasing by about a half million the prior year, and by an average of 1 million per year between 1990 and 2006.12 This leveling-off of the foreign-born population is attributable in part to a slowdown in immigrants arriving from Mexico.13
Despite this reduced flow, immigration remained an important contributor to population gains in large metropolitan gateways, which retain a high concentration of the nation’s foreign born. From
Figure�8.�Net�Domestic�Migration�by�Urban/Suburban�County�Type,�100�Largest�Metro�Areas,�2000-2001�to�2007-2008
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Popuation Estimates Program data
Figure 8. Net Domestic Migration by Urban/Suburban County Type, 100 Largest Metro Areas, 2000-01 to 2007-08
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Rate
Core and High-Density Urban Mature Suburban Emerging Suburban/Exurban
Figure�9.�Net�Domestic�Migration,�Selected�Urban�Counties,�2000-2001�to�2007-2008
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimate Program data
10,000
-10,000
-30,000
-50,000
-70,000
-90,000
-110,000
-130,000
-150,000
-170,000
-190,000
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
New York City Philadelphia San Francisco Los Angeles Co. (CA) Cook Co. (IL) Suffolk Co. (MA)
BROOKINGS | December 200914
2000 to 2008, 25 percent of all net immigrant gains occurred in the two largest metropolitan mag-nets, New York and Los Angeles. Fully 49 percent of gains went to the top eight metro areas (Table 2). In most of these large destinations, international migration served to “cushion” losses from domestic migration, which persisted even during the late-decade slowdown.
Metropolitan New York and Los Angeles each withstood considerable domestic out-migration, espe-cially during the “bubble years” when many of their residents were drawn to growing, more affordable destinations in the South and West. During all of these years, international migration gains served to counter domestic migration declines in these areas. And as net domestic out-migration fell rapidly from its mid-decade peak by 2007–2008, immigration—while down from its own peak early in the decade—held relatively steady.
Similar patterns defined Miami, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. during this period. In each metro area, domestic out-migration dropped approaching 2008, while international migration remained posi-tive amid small but steady declines. Unlike New York and Los Angeles, however, all three metro areas posted international migration gains that exceeded domestic migration losses in 2007–2008, reversing trends from the previous year. In San Francisco, the early decade “dot-com bust” fueled domestic out-migration which moderated over the course of the 2000s, even as annual immigration to the region remained positive and relatively stable.
The two Texas metro areas, Dallas and Houston, rank fifth and sixth among U.S. metropolitan areas in attracting international migrants. Like the other large gateways, Dallas and Houston showed steadily
Table�2.�Annual�Net�International�and�Domestic�Migration,�Largest�Immigrant�Destination�Metro�Areas,2000-2001�to�2007-2008
� Metro�Area� � � �
� � � 2000-� 2001-� 2002-� 2003-� 2004-� 2005-� 2006-� 2007-� ��
� � Type�of�Migration� 2001� 2002� 2003� 2004� 2005� 2006� 2007� 2008� Total�
New York
International 166,837 157,472 138,747 125,810 132,549 135,277 122,908 123,058 1,102,658
Domestic -176,418 -207,800 -236,767 -248,028 -284,253 -273,991 -219,104 -144,099 -1,790,460
Los Angeles
International 124,689 117,720 103,045 93,827 98,800 98,254 89,508 89,674 815,517
Domestic -104,034 -109,505 -119,876 -140,949 -200,728 -227,993 -221,144 -115,037 -1,239,266
Miami
International 64,038 60,445 53,088 48,357 50,887 51,971 47,144 47,206 423,136
Domestic -3,665 -1,766 -20,134 -3,199 -9,923 -50,595 -84,268 -46,997 -220,547
Chicago
International 58,856 54,871 46,195 45,673 46,934 47,735 42,647 43,047 385,958
Domestic -55,164 -68,856 -72,424 -65,555 -77,736 -69,542 -55,355 -42,110 -506,742
Dallas
International 44,845 42,217 36,784 33,813 35,473 35,458 32,194 32,293 293,077
Domestic 48,552 13,919 -1,303 8,504 23,455 71,433 52,260 43,175 259,995
Houston
International 40,772 38,474 33,667 30,705 32,283 32,227 29,330 29,392 266,850
Domestic 4,570 24,498 2,895 6,427 6,187 88,885 19,981 36,724 190,167
San Francisco
International 38,223 35,981 31,542 28,792 30,288 30,138 27,434 27,504 249,902
Domestic -24,917 -79,116 -74,174 -64,659 -51,236 -40,504 -20,536 5,506 -349,636
Washington
International 38,132 33,480 24,643 32,068 29,807 31,879 27,244 27,975 245,228
Domestic 15,922 1,296 -8,500 -14,535 -16,790 -45,148 -35,337 -18,259 -121,351
Source: Brookings analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program data
BROOKINGS | December 2009 15
declining though positive levels of migration from abroad. Unlike other gateways, however, net domes-tic migration to these metro areas remained positive, and by 2007–2008, contributed more to these areas’ population gains than international migration.
Overall, the immigration cushion has served to stabilize population in many of these large mag-net areas in the midst of the decade’s domestic migration ups and downs. This pattern extended to somewhat smaller gateways, too. Among the nation’s largest 40 metropolitan areas, 20 sustained net domestic out-migration from 2000 to 2008, and in 15 of these metro areas, international migration ameliorated at least half of the associated population loss (See Appendix D). Modest declines in immi-gration to the nation’s largest gateways are likely to be temporary, and previous inflow levels should resume when the national economy revives.
Conclusion
On a variety of dimensions, migration in the United States has come to something of a standstill. In the last two years, fewer Americans have moved long distances and locally than was the case for most of the post-World War II period. Some of this decline reflects the continuation of long-term trends, such as aging of the population and increased ho-
meownership. Yet the recent sharp downturn in Americans’ mobility can be attributed to the bursting housing bubble and the financial crisis that precipitated a global recession. These forces left Ameri-cans flat-footed, as would-be movers were unable to find financing to buy a new home, buyers for their existing homes, or employment in more desirable areas.
As this report demonstrates, the great migration slowdown generated distinct regional impacts. Several areas whose economies depended greatly on continued in-migration and growth—in the South and West regions and outer suburbs and exurbs nationwide—suddenly saw their economic engines and tax bases wither. Other areas that previously lost large numbers of migrants to these fast growing magnets—previously “unaffordable” coastal metropolitan areas, declining manufacturing areas, and urban cores everywhere—have seen a recent reduction in their out-migration, and potential economic gains from the migration slowdown.
How long will the current migration slowdown last? Some observers believe this is the beginning of a long-term trend, while others assert that the current migration downturn is simply a blip and that historical American mobility rates will soon resume.14
Meanwhile, commentators have voiced strong opinions about what “the other side” will look like if and when migration rates pick back up. Some view the bursting of the housing bubble and the areas it propped up—“cities in the sand” to use Richard Florida’s phrase for superheated mid-decade growth areas—as the demise of a narrow form of development that depended primarily on real estate growth, fueled by the excesses of easy credit and relatively affordable housing. Such areas, Florida suggests, will have a hard time achieving their past migration attractiveness, unless more diverse economies emerge in these areas.15 Christopher Leinberger sees the recent suburban housing busts as the begin-ning of fundamental structural change in housing markets with the pendulum swinging back to urban core living, where at the extreme, suburbs will become uninhabited “slums.”16 Joel Kotkin sees the recent migration downturn as ushering in a “new localism” trend in America, a rootedness associated with an aging population, the Internet, and an increased focus on family life.17
If migration did continue to stagnate at the recent 2007–2009 levels, it would mark a sharp devia-tion from the long-term mobility and pioneering spirit that has characterized generations of Americans during most of this nation’s history. The fact that, once again, new waves of immigrants and their chil-dren are populating large sections of our country and the younger segments of our age structure, sug-gests that the restlessness that has long linked aspirations of upward social mobility with geographic mobility is likely to continue. Domestic migration levels will probably not hit the high-water mark seen in the immediate post-World War II period, but there is reason to believe that when the housing market clears and recovery is well underway, more “normal” 1990s levels of migration will revive.
Which areas of the country will benefit from revived long-distance will depend greatly on the preferences of more globally aware, diverse, “Millennial” twenty-somethings, who will comprise an estimated 40 percent of adult migrants in the years immediately ahead. It is probably true that the
BROOKINGS | December 200916
attractiveness of previous real estate-fueled growth magnets will not return to mid-decade levels anytime soon. Yet other metropolitan areas could be major draws. Already, there are signs of relatively strong economic performance in both Sun Belt and Snow Belt areas with diversified, new economy industries, or specializations in “eds and meds.” These include places like Seattle, Austin, Washington, D.C., Houston, Dallas, San Jose, Raleigh-Durham, as well as traditional young professional magnets like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Within these broad areas, there will probably also be movement to outer suburbs and exurbs, though at reduced levels, and accompanied by a further “filling in” of their vibrant urban cores.
Moving ahead in America has long meant moving on, across both long distances (to new or better jobs) and short distances (to new or better homes). The betting here is that even the Great Recession, and the great migration slowdown that accompanied it, have not fundamentally altered this uniquely American idea. Migration rates will eventually rise again, but the winners and losers may look slightly different than during the last boom.
Appendix�A.�Annual�Mobility�Rates:�Total,�Within�County,�and�Between�States;�United�States,�Selected�Years,�1950-1951�to�2008-2009
� � � Annual�Mobility�Rates*
� Year� Total**� Within�County� Between�States
2008-09 12.5 8.4 1.6
2007-08 11.9 7.8 1.6
2006-07 13.2 8.6 1.7
2005-06 13.7 8.6 2.0
2004-05 13.9 7.9 2.6
2003-04 13.7 7.9 2.6
2002-03 14.2 8.3 2.7
2001-02 14.8 8.5 2.8
2000-01 14.2 8.0 2.8
1999-00 16.1 9.0 3.1
1998-99 15.9 9.4 2.8
1997-98 16.0 10.2 2.4
1996-97 16.5 10.5 2.4
1995-96 16.3 10.3 2.5
1994-95 16.4 10.8 2.2
1993-94 16.7 10.4 2.6
1992-93 17.0 10.7 2.7
1991-92 17.3 10.7 2.9
1990-91 17.0 10.3 2.9
1980-81 17.2 10.4 2.8
1970-71 18.7 11.4 3.4
1960-61 20.6 13.7 3.2
1950-51 21.2 13.9 3.5
* per 100 population
** includes movement within county, between counties but within state, between states, and from abroad
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
BROOKINGS | December 2009 17
Appendix�B.�Reasons�for�Moving:�Total,�Within�County,�and�Between�State,�2004-2005�and�2008-2009
� � � � � � � � �
� � � Total�Moves*� � � Within�County� �Between�States�
� Reasons� 2004–2005� � 2008–2009� 2004–2005� �2008–2009� 2004–2005� �2008–2009
HOUSING�RELATED 47.1 45.8 61.8 57.2 22.4 13.7
Wanted to own home, not rent 9.3 5.5 12.2 6.6 4.0 1.5
Wanted new or better housing 17.8 14.5 24.4 18.6 7.3 2.5
Wanted better neighborhood 4.0 5.0 4.8 6.2 2.0 1.6
For cheaper housing 6.6 11.1 8.7 13.9 3.5 3.9
Other housing reason 9.4 9.7 11.7 11.9 5.6 4.2
� JOB�RELATED 17.6 17.8 6.7 8.9 34.0 46.1
New job or job transfer 10.4 8.7 2.3 2.1 25.5 33.2
To look for work or lost job 1.9 2.7 0.5 1.0 3.0 7.3
For easier commute 3.4 5.0 3.3 5.0 1.6 1.9
Retired 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.2
Other job-related reason 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.6 2.5 2.5
� FAMILY�RELATED 27.1 26.4 26.3 26.6 30.4 25.4
Change in marital status 7.1 5.4 7.0 5.5 6.7 3.7
To establish own household 7.8 9.5 9.5 11.6 5.0 2.7
Other family reason 12.2 11.5 9.8 9.5 18.7 19.0
� OTHERS 8.2 10.0 5.2 7.3 13.2 14.8
Attend/leave college 3.2 2.6 1.8 1.5 5.3 3.6
Change of climate 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.3 2.6
Health reasons 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.4 1.8
Other reasons 2.8 4.9 1.8 3.8 3.2 6.8
Natural disaster 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0
� TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* includes movement within county, between counties but within state, between states, and from abroad
Source: Brookings analysis of Current Population Survey data
BROOKINGS | December 200918
Appen
dix
�C.�N
et�D
om
estic�
Mig
ration�a
nd�Inte
rnational�M
igra
tion,�U.S
.�Sta
tes,
�2000�to�2
008
�2000-2
008�T
otal
�A
nnual�Dom
estic�
Mig
ration�
Dom
estic�
Inte
rnational
�Sta
te�
2000-2
001�
2001-2002�
2002-2
003�
2003-2
004�
2004-2
005�
2005-2
006�
2006-2
007�
2007-
2008�
Mig
ration�
Mig
ration
A
laba
ma
-8,8
50
-8,6
16
4,82
1 5,
123
16,2
48
32,9
45
18,4
96
15,1
18
75,2
85
29,9
10
A
lask
a -2
,891
1,
916
2,61
9 62
9 -8
68
-1,9
81
-3,9
09
-3,7
32
-8,2
17
3,94
7
A
rizo
na
56,8
68
69,9
83
63,0
38
90,7
45
132,
123
137,
697
87,2
45
62,9
80
700,
679
208,
005
A
rkan
sas
-318
34
1 5,
175
10,9
61
15,4
05
21,3
61
7,94
6 6,
934
67,8
05
26,3
88
C
alif
orn
ia
-38,
896
-114
,576
-9
6,32
9 -1
61,0
77
-250
,028
-2
85,4
94
-268
,809
-1
44,0
61
-1,3
59,2
70
1,75
4,94
6
C
olo
rad
o
44,9
12
14,4
41
-7,5
17
-3,3
32
8,60
0 31
,864
33
,021
36
,878
15
8,86
7 13
7,15
2
C
on
nec
ticu
t -7
,175
-2
,754
47
-1
4,32
0 -1
7,35
7 -1
5,12
5 -2
4,21
8 -1
4,98
5 -9
5,88
7 99
,037
D
elaw
are
2,83
5 4,
193
5,81
4 6,
090
7,81
3 5,
792
4,61
5 4,
126
41,2
78
13,6
69
D
.C.
-4,2
77
-7,5
56
-10,
261
-7,0
14
-6,7
66
-2,6
38
-3,3
23
-1,6
22
-43,
457
25,0
27
Fl
ori
da
157,
832
185,
226
170,
864
266,
157
266,
850
174,
416
37,6
50
-9,2
86
1,24
9,70
9 66
8,04
0
G
eorg
ia
55,2
56
43,3
08
36,6
29
51,8
00
62,3
18
120,
420
98,6
66
56,6
74
525,
071
233,
520
H
awai
i -6
,518
-7
24
5,01
9 -1
,972
1,
058
-3,4
61
-11,
849
-3,7
52
-22,
199
29,3
55
Id
aho
7,
422
6,84
7 9,
068
13,1
70
20,2
15
22,0
49
19,9
75
12,7
67
111,
513
17,1
42
Ill
ino
is
-69,
865
-79,
082
-78,
604
-72,
343
-85,
236
-72,
434
-56,
984
-52,
349
-566
,897
40
9,86
5
In
dia
na
-6,4
99
-13,
033
-2,2
31
-4,3
63
3,42
3 6,
530
628
-1,9
79
-17,
524
68,4
16
Io
wa
-13,
271
-13,
252
-8,4
97
-3,8
40
-5,5
33
-598
-2
,491
41
1 -4
7,07
1 35
,444
K
ansa
s -1
3,83
7 -9
,577
-9
,750
-1
1,92
9 -1
0,93
7 -6
,743
-3
,280
28
4 -6
5,76
9 44
,788
K
entu
cky
-1,3
29
4,54
3 10
,926
5,
941
13,6
06
10,4
64
17,0
44
11,8
28
73,0
23
29,9
43
L
ou
isia
na
-33,
945
-18,
993
-10,
584
-9,8
46
-14,
335
-271
,330
27
,500
13
,555
-3
17,9
78
22,1
28
M
ain
e 6,
260
8,66
4 9,
194
3,71
1 2,
586
395
-963
-2
,063
27
,784
5,
142
M
aryl
and
8,
893
12,8
72
7,57
9 -1
0,94
4 -1
2,48
8 -2
5,89
0 -3
3,71
6 -3
2,16
1 -8
5,85
5 13
1,32
7
M
assa
chu
sett
s -1
5,55
0 -3
0,88
5 -4
3,55
8 -5
4,50
6 -5
5,44
3 -4
4,06
4 -3
2,60
7 -1
8,67
5 -2
95,2
88
204,
945
M
ich
igan
-2
5,44
1 -3
4,99
9 -3
2,95
4 -3
9,85
3 -5
7,26
7 -7
3,99
1 -9
5,78
7 -1
09,2
57
-469
,549
15
1,58
9
M
inn
eso
ta
7,44
1 -5
,144
-9
,347
-7
,504
-1
2,51
3 -5
,269
-5
,028
-7
,136
-4
4,50
0 86
,871
M
issi
ssip
pi
-9,3
40
-7,2
06
-1,2
00
3,66
0 55
3 -1
6,81
9 3,
833
-753
-2
7,27
2 10
,116
M
isso
uri
2,
387
3,73
1 5,
355
4,62
1 7,
804
11,3
02
4,50
1 -2
,384
37
,317
50
,449
M
on
tan
a -3
99
1,37
6 4,
566
6,10
2 5,
731
6,56
8 6,
308
5,98
6 36
,238
2,
075
N
ebra
ska
-8,3
64
-5,4
19
-2,6
85
-5,1
23
-3,5
15
-5,1
68
-5,3
67
-1,4
91
-37,
132
26,4
64
N
evad
a 47
,859
44
,015
43
,286
67
,007
52
,331
53
,827
40
,312
16
,316
36
4,95
3 82
,157
N
ew H
amps
hir
e 10
,507
8,
365
5,49
9 5,
454
2,72
2 1,
790
-2,3
74
-2,4
73
29,4
90
13,7
02
N
ew J
erse
y -3
2,14
8 -3
1,04
9 -4
2,27
5 -5
1,22
1 -6
7,34
0 -7
7,63
9 -7
2,37
0 -5
6,20
8 -4
30,2
50
370,
173
N
ew M
exic
o
-9,4
06
4,54
2 4,
383
4,96
6 6,
981
7,70
3 8,
082
1,03
2 28
,283
32
,959
N
ew Y
ork
-1
65,9
28
-180
,276
-1
88,5
15
-209
,755
-2
48,6
47
-233
,306
-1
85,6
38
-126
,209
-1
,538
,274
84
4,29
9
N
ort
h C
aro
lina
46,2
95
43,7
85
47,4
99
44,3
38
73,4
18
110,
632
116,
245
98,0
74
580,
286
182,
816
N
ort
h D
ako
ta
-6,7
96
-4,0
61
-1,3
85
955
-3,3
90
-2,0
87
-2,2
51
-381
-1
9,39
6 3,
083
O
hio
-3
7,79
2 -3
7,72
3 -3
3,06
7 -3
7,67
5 -4
5,03
3 -5
0,27
5 -4
7,35
0 -4
9,75
2 -3
38,6
67
92,7
11
O
klah
om
a -1
0,01
3 1,
072
-1,7
58
-3,9
66
-531
15
,688
14
,736
7,
954
23,1
82
40,9
13
O
reg
on
13
,654
23
,342
11
,582
2,
444
22,8
21
33,7
35
25,2
97
24,7
56
157,
631
88,8
51
P
enn
sylv
ania
-2
4,24
7 -6
,556
1,
211
-3,0
61
-3,3
34
3,31
2 -5
,056
-1
1,46
2 -4
9,19
3 12
8,65
0
BROOKINGS | December 2009 19
Appen
dix
�C.�N
et�D
om
estic�
Mig
ration�a
nd�Inte
rnational�M
igra
tion,�U.S
.�Sta
tes,
�2000�to�2
008�(co
ntinued
)
�2000-2
008�T
otal
�A
nnual�Dom
estic�
Mig
ration�
Dom
estic�
Inte
rnational
�Sta
te�
2000-2
001�
2001-2002�
2002-2
003�
2003-2
004�
2004-2
005�
2005-2
006�
2006-2
007�
2007-
2008�
Mig
ration�
Mig
ration
R
ho
de
Isla
nd
2,
181
3,05
3 1,
563
-5,6
59
-10,
937
-11,
100
-12,
013
-8,8
16
-41,
728
23,9
46
S
ou
th C
aro
lina
14,3
33
19,2
87
26,0
53
29,2
54
30,1
33
48,5
38
54,1
15
49,7
36
271,
449
39,5
52
S
ou
th D
ako
ta
-1,7
15
-1,3
87
361
1,71
2 16
0 1,
988
2,14
6 2,
194
5,45
9 4,
400
Te
nn
esse
e 11
,645
11
,546
20
,658
24
,066
42
,720
50
,821
47
,193
31
,198
23
9,84
7 59
,377
Te
xas
40,4
85
45,8
53
30,0
39
32,4
14
53,5
82
219,
742
138,
088
140,
862
701,
065
818,
866
U
tah
-6
,435
-4
,321
-8
,162
-2
,438
9,
373
18,4
28
23,8
46
17,6
05
47,8
96
61,4
65
V
erm
on
t 66
6 1,
471
557
67
-556
-6
54
-1,7
67
-1,7
03
-1,9
19
4,91
4
V
irg
inia
16
,126
29
,478
40
,783
20
,517
29
,335
10
,184
3,
796
2,67
8 15
2,89
7 15
4,10
5
W
ash
ing
ton
16
,751
14
,763
9,
318
14,7
93
23,5
79
47,6
14
31,7
74
40,5
88
199,
180
159,
211
W
est
Vir
gin
ia
-7,0
62
1,99
8 4,
423
2,29
4 2,
283
2,61
4 2,
449
3,78
8 12
,787
4,
209
W
isco
nsi
n
872
5,04
2 60
2 1,
700
-2,0
42
-5,5
60
-4,9
95
-7,0
22
-11,
403
57,2
53
W
yom
ing
-3
,173
2,
136
148
1,05
0 32
5 3,
207
6,63
8 5,
390
15,7
21
1,99
9
S
ou
rce:
Bro
oki
ng
s an
alys
is o
f C
ensu
s B
ure
au P
op
ula
tio
n E
stim
ates
Pro
gra
m d
ata
BROOKINGS | December 200920
Appen
dix
�D.�N
et�D
om
estic�
Mig
ration�a
nd�Inte
rnational�M
igra
tion,�Larg
e�M
etro
�Are
as�
by�R
egio
n,�2000�to�2
008*
��
�2008�
��
��
��
��
2000–2
008�T
otal
�Reg
ion/�
�Popula
tion�
Annual�Dom
estic�
Mig
ration�
Dom
estic�
Inte
rnational
��
��
2000-�
2001-
�2002-�
2003-�
2004-�
2005-�
2006-�
2007-
�
�M
etro
�Are
a**
�(1
000s)
�2001�
2002�
2003�
2004�
2005�
2006�
2007�
2008�
Mig
ration�
Mig
ration
N
OR
TH
New
Yo
rk
19,0
07
-176
,418
-2
07,8
00
-236
,767
-2
48,0
28
-284
,253
-2
73,9
91
-219
,104
-1
44,0
99
-1,7
90,4
60
1,10
2,65
8
Ph
ilad
elp
hia
5,
838
-14,
758
-7,8
21
-7,0
39
-8,1
18
-13,
995
-16,
119
-18,
598
-21,
848
-108
,296
95
,882
Bo
sto
n
4,52
3 -1
3,94
5 -3
5,44
5 -4
7,03
6 -4
6,82
1 -4
6,08
8 -3
2,98
8 -2
2,50
8 -8
,261
-2
53,0
92
165,
260
Pit
tsb
urg
h
2,35
1 -8
,085
-5
,404
-4
,654
-8
,698
-1
1,14
8 -9
,860
-5
,062
-2
,432
-5
5,34
3 15
,576
Pro
vid
ence
1,
597
3,04
7 5,
679
3,42
8 -7
,485
-1
3,53
0 -1
4,28
2 -1
3,76
6 -1
0,62
6 -4
7,53
5 29
,689
M
IDW
ES
T
Ch
icag
o
9,57
0 -5
5,16
4 -6
8,85
6 -7
2,42
4 -6
5,55
5 -7
7,73
6 -6
9,54
2 -5
5,35
5 -4
2,11
0 -5
06,7
42
385,
958
Det
roit
4,
425
-25,
209
-33,
974
-30,
532
-31,
013
-38,
727
-46,
477
-59,
081
-62,
160
-327
,173
91
,394
Min
n-S
t.P
aul
3,23
0 7,
571
-4,6
01
-9,1
51
-4,1
84
-7,2
24
-2,7
64
-1,9
65
-3,4
40
-25,
758
72,6
01
St.
Lo
uis
2,
817
-4,4
20
-4,4
95
-2,1
45
-4,7
24
-7,8
80
-3,6
70
-6,9
01
-5,5
67
-39,
802
26,5
47
Cin
cin
nat
i 2,
155
-1,5
60
-4,9
01
-3,6
57
-2,0
75
-1,8
37
-680
-1
,354
-3
,569
-1
9,63
3 17
,287
Cle
vela
nd
2,
088
-14,
943
-13,
586
-13,
684
-14,
597
-17,
697
-20,
487
-16,
829
-14,
896
-126
,719
25
,432
Kan
sas
Cit
y 2,
002
4,29
4 5,
848
196
1,04
7 1,
401
3,79
8 4,
529
1,41
3�22
,526
28
,730
Co
lum
bu
s 1,
773
5,67
0 43
0 3,
333
2,28
8 2,
672
3,47
3 3,
222
2,49
9 23
,587
30
,262
Ind
ian
apo
lis
1,71
5 9,
196
6,43
7 6,
026
7,10
2 7,
720
10,1
13
8,81
5 6,
707
62,1
16
20,6
79
Milw
auke
e 1,
549
-8,6
19
-7,1
39
-7,8
66
-10,
040
-12,
903
-11,
551
-7,8
44
-6,4
43�
-72,
405
23,7
09
S
OU
TH
Dal
las
6,30
0 48
,552
13
,919
-1
,303
8,
504
23,4
55
71,4
33
52,2
60
43,1
75
259,
995
293,
077
Ho
ust
on
5,
728
4,57
0 24
,498
2,
895
6,42
7 6,
187
88,8
85
19,9
81
36,7
24
190,
167
266,
850
Mia
mi
5,41
5 -3
,665
-1
,766
-2
0,13
4 -3
,199
-9
,923
-5
0,59
5 -8
4,26
8 -4
6,99
7 -2
20,5
47
423,
136
Atl
anta
5,
376
47,7
92
26,2
19
22,5
07
32,2
97
51,4
62
95,6
61
75,0
98
43,0
51
394,
087
181,
920
Was
hin
gto
n, D
.C.
5,35
8 15
,922
1,
296
-8,5
00
-14,
535
-16,
790
-45,
148
-35,
337
-18,
259
-121
,351
24
5,22
8
Tam
pa
2,73
4 30
,512
34
,285
32
,262
49
,427
52
,008
39
,331
16
,117
6,
510
260,
452
59,8
52
Bal
tim
ore
2,
667
-235
4,
108
3,55
6 -6
,434
-5
,883
-6
,573
-1
1,15
8 -1
2,35
2 -3
4,97
1 31
,238
Orl
and
o
2,05
5 30
,423
27
,098
27
,184
44
,365
51
,939
34
,307
11
,570
3,
153
230,
039
72,2
70
San
An
ton
io
2,03
1 5,
651
16,2
52
16,5
78
15,0
25
15,6
05
31,4
21
30,9
10
22,7
91
154,
233
28,9
77
Ch
arlo
tte
1,70
2 17
,355
14
,067
13
,749
18
,992
31
,342
43
,295
45
,549
34
,387
21
8,73
6 42
,720
Vir
gin
ia B
each
1,
658
-4,7
11
12,2
08
22,1
81
332
-4,6
59
-3,7
27
-14,
556
-15,
523
-8,4
55
-2,6
81
Au
stin
1,
653
34,6
55
4,78
0 6,
916
14,6
24
22,5
37
38,9
18
40,5
61
35,0
41
198,
032
59,2
59
Nas
hvill
e 1,
551
8,17
1 4,
164
7,33
2 13
,458
16
,605
22
,834
20
,638
16
,625
10
9,82
7 25
,388
Jac
kso
nvill
e 1,
313
14,1
64
17,9
92
17,5
43
19,7
33
17,7
81
18,7
53
11,4
05
4,76
8 12
2,13
9 11
,101
BROOKINGS | December 2009 21
Appen
dix
�D.�N
et�D
om
estic�
Mig
ration�a
nd�Inte
rnational�M
igra
tion,�Larg
e�M
etro
�Are
as�
by�R
egio
n,�2000�to�2
008*�
(continued
)
��
�2008�
��
��
��
��
2000–2
008�T
otal
�Reg
ion/�
�Popula
tion�
Annual�Dom
estic�
Mig
ration�
Dom
estic�
Inte
rnational
��
��
2000-�
2001-
�2002-�
2003-�
2004-�
2005-�
2006-�
2007-
�
�M
etro
�Are
a**
�(1
000s)
�2001�
2002�
2003�
2004�
2005�
2006�
2007�
2008�
Mig
ration�
Mig
ration
W
ES
T
Lo
s A
ng
eles
12
,873
-1
04,0
34
-109
,505
-1
19,8
76
-140
,949
-2
00,7
28
-227
,993
-2
21,1
44
-115
,037
-1
,239
,266
81
5,51
7
Ph
oen
ix
4,28
2 49
,818
49
,846
44
,673
66
,231
98
,699
10
2,95
4 65
,949
51
,077
52
9,24
7 16
8,76
5
San
Fra
nci
sco
4,
275
-24,
917
-79,
116
-74,
174
-64,
659
-51,
236
-40,
504
-20,
536
5,50
6 -3
49,6
36
249,
902
Riv
ersi
de
4,11
6 57
,212
66
,484
85
,910
95
,221
72
,502
61
,177
29
,715
-7
,608
46
0,61
3 96
,382
Sea
ttle
3,
345
4,96
2 -7
,177
-1
2,93
1 -1
0,26
9 5,
125
21,2
52
10,2
81
11,8
69
23,1
12
103,
670
San
Die
go
3,
001
6,44
6 3,
674
1,13
3 -3
8,10
1 -3
6,06
0 -3
5,78
5 -1
5,55
3 42
0 -1
13,8
26
98,6
50
Den
ver
2,50
7 16
,883
-5
,212
-1
2,53
9 -7
,127
-4
29
10,1
61
15,7
72
17,8
72
35,3
81
93,1
90
Po
rtla
nd
2,
207
17,1
23
14,4
85
4,02
5 48
5 12
,335
18
,366
17
,101
17
,996
10
1,91
6 68
,655
Sac
ram
ento
2,
110
37,2
74
35,8
44
25,8
74
18,2
93
4,75
7 1,
779
3,75
7 4,
524
132,
102
63,5
44
Las
Veg
as
1,86
6 41
,311
37
,491
35
,714
53
,848
39
,186
44
,436
32
,876
14
,365
29
9,22
7 65
,758
San
Jo
se
1,81
9 -3
6,88
4 -5
8,47
6 -4
4,17
9 -3
3,47
9 -2
2,15
4 -1
7,79
7 -1
1,90
3 -2
,625
-2
27,4
97
162,
882
*4
0 la
rges
t M
etro
Are
as b
ased
on
20
08
Po
pu
lati
on
Est
imat
es
**
Offi
cial
nam
e as
defi
ned
by
the
Offi
ce o
f M
anag
emen
t an
d B
ud
get
is a
bb
revi
ated
S
ou
rce:
Bro
oki
ng
s an
alys
is o
f C
ensu
s B
ure
au P
op
ula
tio
n E
stim
ates
Pro
gra
m d
ata
BROOKINGS | December 200922
Appendix�E.�Top�Five�Origins�and�Destinations�for�Net�Domestic�Migration,�Selected�States,�2003–2004�to�2007-2008
� States/� � �Contributions�to�Net�Domestic�Migration*� � � Total
� Origins�or�Destinations� 2003-2004� 2004-2005� 2005-2006� 2006-2007� 2007-2008� �2003-2008
FLORIDA
Origins
New York 53,145 62,600 52,073 32,800 18,018 218,636
New Jersey 23,841 27,300 23,563 16,639 11,236 102,579
Massachusetts 15,902 16,838 13,117 8,072 3,931 57,860
Michigan 9,036 10,020 10,521 10,205 8,286 48,068
Pennsylvania 11,960 13,400 10,197 6,629 4,626 46,812
Destinations
Georgia 1,098 -3,008 -15,828 -27,487 -19,995 -65,220
North Carolina -269 -2,703 -11,398 -17,573 -15,804 -47,747
Tennessee -340 -4,045 -9,679 -12,691 -10,479 -37,234
Texas 2,967 1,672 -6,232 -13,293 -15,142 -30,028
South Carolina 583 -524 -4,734 -7,081 -6,403 -18,159
TEXAS
Origins
California 11,990 23,270 41,164 50,647 32,406 159,477
Louisiana 3,576 5,617 79,791 -6,708 -192 82,084
Florida -2,967 -1,672 6,232 13,293 15,142 30,028
Illinois 4,172 4,753 5,676 6,257 6,675 27,533
New York 3,015 3,782 5,179 5,799 5,218 22,993
Destinations
Arkansas -933 -1,559 -622 698 1,628 -788
District of Columbia -164 -110 -168 -145 56 -531
Montana -242 175 -78 -126 30 -241
CALIFORNIA
Origins
New York 2,641 3,842 3,779 3,467 3,303 17,032
New Jersey 2,193 2,762 3,041 2,557 2,988 13,541
Massachusetts 2,404 2,663 3,062 2,846 2,498 13,473
Michigan 1,418 1,237 2,226 2,931 4,218 12,030
Illinois 2,744 1,287 1,415 1,172 2,298 8,916
Destinations
Arizona -24,620 -45,265 -49,026 -31,408 -15,533 -165,852
Texas -11,990 -23,270 -41,164 -50,647 -32,406 -159,477
Nevada -30,374 -31,610 -30,925 -24,743 -12,094 -129,746
Oregon -11,072 -18,159 -21,667 -16,549 -12,577 -80,024
Washington -7,554 -14,211 -16,986 -13,099 -11,890 -63,740
BROOKINGS | December 2009 23
Appendix�E.�Top�Five�Origins�and�Destinations�for�Net�Domestic�Migration,�Selected�States,�2003–2004�to�2007-2008�(continued)
� States/� � �Contributions�to�Net�Domestic�Migration*� � � Total
� Origins�or�Destinations� 2003-2004� 2004-2005� 2005-2006� 2006-2007� 2007-2008� �2003-2008
NEW�YORK
Origins
Michigan 13 68 648 1,044 1,331 3,104
Massachusetts 693 71 12 -446 -152 178
North Dakota 2 53 34 -31 29 87
Destinations
Florida -53,145 -62,600 -52,073 -32,800 -18,018 -218,636
New Jersey -26,488 -26,923 -24,144 -18,529 -15,737 -111,821
North Carolina -10,273 -14,418 -16,968 -17,862 -15,970 -75,491
Pennsylvania -15,115 -15,437 -15,613 -12,094 -7,759 -66,018
Georgia -8,692 -10,648 -12,681 -12,742 -8,904 -53,667
ARIZONA
Origins
California 24,620 45,265 49,026 31,408 15,533 165,852
Illinois 5,138 5,430 5,261 3,616 3,224 22,669
Michigan 2,347 2,922 3,757 4,674 5,096 18,796
New York 3,067 3,532 3,992 3,221 2,121 15,933
Ohio 2,008 2,274 2,855 2,581 2,197 11,915
Destinations
Texas 1,621 2,016 -565 -3,536 -3,524 -3,988
Idaho 129 -390 -631 -914 -739 -2,545
Arkansas -145 -140 -360 -309 -323 -1,277
North Carolina 322 136 -523 -622 -562 -1,249
Tennessee -48 -169 -325 -396 74 -864
NEVADA
Origins
California 30,374 31,610 30,925 24,743 12,094 129,746
New York 2,330 2,624 2,344 1,738 1,243 10,279
Illinois 2,261 2,010 2,059 1,277 1,051 8,658
Michigan 896 985 1,534 2,031 2,382 7,828
Hawaii 981 1,355 1,288 1,821 1,066 6,511
Destinations
Arizona -307 -2,224 -2,136 -965 -733 -6,365
Idaho -194 -720 -1,207 -1,011 -902 -4,034
Texas 729 74 -767 -1,412 -1,754 -3,130
Utah 1,381 -413 -875 -1,323 -1,768 -2,998
Oregon 681 -254 -588 -633 -687 -1,481
*Contribution to net domestic migration is defined as: size of in-migration flow from the other state minus the size of the out-migration flow to that state
Source: Brookings analysis of Internal Revenue Service state-to-state migration data
BROOKINGS | December 200924
Appendix�F.�Net�Domestic�Migration�by�Demographic�Characteristics,�Florida,�Texas,�and�California,�2004-2005�and�2007-2008
� Florida� Texas� California
� � � 2004-2005� 2007-2008� 2004-2005� 2007-2008� 2004-2005� 2007-2008
Race/Ethnicity
White 112,217 -7,790 54,624 66,162 -160,452 -65,340
Black 13,593 9,462 49,252 17,252 -21,648 -13,063
Hispanic 45,178 -13,375 8,292 33,882 -91,423 -45,007
Asian 9,908 -1,715 4,649 10,103 -4,232 3,957
Age
Under 15 24,488 -8,380 33,938 49,675 -88,709 -39,285
15-24 23,477 -8,727 12,775 10,104 -11,753 -2,770
25-34 22,428 -19,948 20,887 37,123 -44,598 -22,716
35-44 21,395 -2,227 13,367 19,456 -54,905 -20,927
45-54 27,298 264 11,965 4,970 -30,277 -12,783
55-64 41,784 14,306 7,003 2,111 -28,416 -10,891
65+ 16,209 8,766 12,721 6,460 -22,315 -8,121
Educational Attainment
Less than HS 15,584 3,649 8,698 12,365 -27,272 -16,335
HS Grad 37,741 4,760 18,269 11,678 -53,144 -20,699
Some College 35,745 -9,449 29,726 25,927 -59,052 -42,641
College Grad 40,044 2,201 9,250 20,150 -41,043 4,237
Marital Status
Never married 49,982 -4,821 18,116 23,265 -22,631 -18,417
Currently married 94,780 -551 43,607 48,795 -131,581 -45,790
Divorced/Separated 13,923 3,498 17,434 8,990 -38,002 -16,689
Widowed 202 -4,947 3,288 2,769 -9,193 -2,626
Source: Brookings analysis of American Community Survey data
BROOKINGS | December 2009 25
Endnotes
1. Charles B. Nam, William J. Serow, and David F. Sly, International Handbook on Internal Migration (New York: Greenwood Press,
1990); Catherine Moye, “Moving Stories.” Financial Times, August 21, 2009; Larry H. Long, Migration and Residential Mobility in
the United States (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988).
2. More information on these sources can be found at: ASEC (www.census.gov/cps); ACS (www.census.gov/acs/www); Population
Estimates Program (www.census.gov/popest/estimates.html); IRS migration data (www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/
article/0,,id=96943,00.html). See also: Emily Gross, “Internal Revenue Service Area-to-Area Migration Data: Strengths,
Limitations and Current Trends” (Internal Revenue Service, 2005).
3. Reasons for moving across different distances and among different demographic groups are explored in Jason Schachter, “Why
People Move: Exploring the March 2000 Current Population Survey” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001); and D’Vera Cohn and Rich
Morin, “American Mobility: Who Moves? Who Stays Put? Where’s Home?” (Washington: Pew Research Center, 2008).
4. Among local residential movers, those with the least education are most likely to move. In 2007–2008, within-county migra-
tion rates for individuals with less than a high school education was 8.5 percent, compared with 6.3 percent for those who
only graduated from high school and 4.5 percent for those who had schooling beyond college. This reflects the fact that less
educated groups are more likely to be renters, who are much more prone to move than homeowners. Homeownership is less of a
barrier for long-distance migrants.
5. Among racial groups, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics showed bigger declines in interstate migration than whites.
6. “Sorrow In the Sunshine.” The Economist, July 11, 2009, page 33. Recent estimates produced by the University of Florida Bureau
of Economic Business Research also show that the state sustained an overall population loss between April 2008 and April
2009. “Preliminary 2009 Florida Population Estimates” (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business
Research, 2009).
7. Alan Berube and others, “MetroMonitor: Tracking Economic Recession and Recovery in America’s 100 Largest Metropolitan
Areas” (Brookings, September 2009).
8. “Lone Star Rising: A special report on Texas.” The Economist. July 11, 2009.
9. Hans Johnson and Richard Lovelady, “Migration Between California and Other States: 1985-1994” (Sacramento: California
Research Bureau of the California State Library and the Demographic Unit of the California Department of Finance, 1995);
James P. Allen and Eugene Turner, “Migrants Between California and Other States.” The California Geographer 47 (2007): 1–26;
William H. Frey and Kao Lee Liaw, “Migration Within the United States: Role of Race-Ethnicity.” Brookings-Wharton Papers on
Urban Affairs (2005): 207–262; Dowell Meyers, John Pitkin, and Ricardo Ramirez, “The New Homegrown Majority in California:
Recognizing the New Reality of Growing Commitment to the Golden State” (Los Angeles: USC School of Policy, Planning and
Development, 2009).
10. Berube and others, “MetroMonitor.”
11. The urban/suburban county type classification shown in Figure 8 pertains to counties within the nation’s 100 largest metro-
politan areas according to the following categories: Core and High-Density Urban (counties which contain major cities and/or
have more than 95 percent of population in urbanized areas), Mature Suburban (counties with 75 to 94 percent of population in
urbanized areas); and Emerging Suburban/Exurban (counties with less than 75 percent of population in urbanized areas).
12. The 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) recorded a U.S. foreign-born population of 37,960,935, lower than the 38,059,694
total for 2007. The 98,759-person decline is within sampling error, but it is the first recorded decline in the U.S. foreign-born
population in the ACS since 2000, or the decennial census since 1970. Nonetheless, the size of the foreign-born population is
affected by mortality and fertility of long-term foreign-born residents as well as recent international movement in both direc-
tions. Thus there continue to be new immigrant flows into the United States from more direct annual international migration
estimates presented in this section.
BROOKINGS | December 200926
13. Jeffrey Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “Mexican Immigrants: How Many Come? How Many Leave?” (Washington: Pew Hispanic
Center, 2009).
14. Todd Lewan, “Has Twilight Come to the Sun Belt?” The Gainesville Sun, May 30, 2009.
15. Richard Florida, “How the Crash Will Reshape America.” The Atlantic, March, 2009, pp. 44–56.
16. Christopher B. Leinberger, “The Next Slum?” The Atlantic, March 2008, pp. 70–75.
17. Joel Kotkin, “There is No Place Like Home.” Newsweek, October, 19, 2009, pp. 42–43.
18. Berube and others, “MetroMonitor.”
BROOKINGS | December 2009 27
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Cathy Sun of the University of Michigan Population Studies Center for assis-tance with Census data compilation and research. Additional thanks are due to John P. DeWitt, of Michigan for his research assistance efforts. Thanks are also due to Alan Berube and David Jackson at Brookings for their helpful comments on the manuscript, and to Jill Wilson atBrookings for production of the map.
The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program thanks the Rockefeller Foundation for its support of the program’s research on the State of Metropolitan America, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the George Gund Foundation, and the Heinz Endowments for their general support of the program.
For More Information
William H. FreySenior FellowMetropolitan Policy Program at Brookings202.797.6105 [email protected]
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington D.C. 20036-2188telephone 202.797.6000fax 202.797.6004web site www.brookings.edu
telephone 202.797.6139 fax 202.797.2965web site www.brookings.edu/metro
BrOOkings
About the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution Created in 1996, the Brookings Institution’s Metro-politan Policy Program provides decision makers with cutting-edge research and policy ideas for improving the health and prosperity of cities and metropolitan areas including their component cit-ies, suburbs, and rural areas. To learn more visit: www.brookings.edu/metro